R v AB

Case [2020] NSWDC 521


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AB [2020] NSWDC 521
Hearing dates: 14 August 2020
Date of orders: 11 September 2020
Decision date: 11 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Weinstein SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate term of imprisonment. For orders see [54]

Catchwords:

SENTENCE – sexual intercourse with child under the age of 10 – groom child for unlawful sexual activity – position of authority- first offence- in the home of the child – in the presence of another child

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Alesbhi v R; Esbhi v R [2018] NSWCCA 30

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (No 1) of 2002

JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120

R v ND [2016] NSWCCA 103

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
AB (Offender)
Representation: DPP (Crown) (Mr B Page)
Mr S Howell (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/190213
Publication restriction: Non Publication Order with respect to the name of the complainant or any information that may identify her.

Judgment

  1. The offender, who I will refer to as AB so as to protect the identity of the victim, born in 1984, is before the court for sentence for:

  1. Sexual intercourse with child under the age of 10 years contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and the standard non-parole period is 15 years (sequence 3);

  2. Groom child under 14 years for unlawful sexual activity contrary to s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is 12 years and the standard non-parole period is 5 years (sequence 4); and

  3. Intentionally carry out sexual act with child under 10 years of age contrary to s 66DC(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is 7 years and for which there is no standard non-parole period (sequence 11).

  1. There are also matters on a Form 1 which the offender asks me to take into account when sentencing him. There is a charge of indecent assault person under 16 years of age contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, and a charge of incite victim under 10 years to commit indecent act contrary to s 61)(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. They both attach to sequence 3.

  2. The agreed facts are as follows:-

  1. At the time of the offences, the offender was in a domestic relationship with the victim’s mother JC.

  2. Until May 2017, the offender, JC and the victim lived together in Ruse. From May 2017, they lived in Bradbury.

  3. In July 2017, JC gave birth to a daughter to the offender.

Sequence 10 – Incite victim under 10 years to commit indecent act (DV)-T1 (Form 1)

  1. While the family was living at…

Continue reading R v AB

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v AB [2020] NSWDC 521
Case
[2020] NSWDC 521
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, AB, was charged with multiple counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10, grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity, and engaging in an act of indecency with a child under 16 years of age in the presence of another child. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. AB was found guilty of all charges, and the court proceeded to determine an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the severity of the crimes, AB's position of authority over the child, the fact that this was AB's first offence, and the impact of the crimes on the child. The court also considered the need to protect the community and deter similar offences. The prosecution argued for a significant custodial sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence, highlighting AB's otherwise unblemished record and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court held that the gravity of the crimes warranted a custodial sentence. Given the nature of the offences, the court found that the only appropriate form of sentence was imprisonment. The court recognised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community. Despite the defence's arguments, the court found that a non-custodial sentence would not adequately address the seriousness of the crimes. Ultimately, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, which was to be served as an aggregate term of imprisonment.

The final orders of the court, detailed in [54], mandated a full-time custodial sentence. The court ordered that AB was to serve a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the crimes and the need to protect the community and deter similar offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate term of imprisonment. For orders see [54]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.